‘Where is the shortcoming in Canada’s capital markets that requires government intervention to create another investment fund?’ Letters to the editor for April 28

Open this photo in gallery:Prime Minister Mark Carney makes an announcement on the Canada Strong Fund, Canada's first sovereign wealth fund, at the Canada Science and Technology Museum in Ottawa on Monday.Justin Tang/The Canadian PressShareSave for laterPlease log in to bookmark this story.Log InCreate Free AccountChoice aplentyRe “Carney announces Canada’s first sovereign wealth fund with an initial endowment of $25-billion” (April 27): Where is the shortcoming in Canada’s capital markets that requires government intervention to create another investment fund for Canadians?There are thousands of publicly listed companies in Canada and even more mutual funds and ETFs available, many of which focus exclusively on Canadian investments and require very little money to get started.What opportunities are currently lacking for Canadians to invest in Canada’s economy?Ed Fine OttawaLook in the mirrorRe “Regime change is the only responsible option to eliminate the threat of Iran” (April 21): Despite helping construct the United Nations Charter’s prohibitions on the use of force, the United States continues to erode them through its current military actions in Iran. More than 100 international law scholars have determined these strikes on essential civilian infrastructure lack a clear legal basis and violate humanitarian principles of distinction and proportionality.This reflects a decades-long pattern. The 2003 Iraq invasion proceeded without UN Security Council authorization, relying on self-defence claims widely rejected in legal scholarship. In Libya and Syria, interpretations of collective self-defence and counterterrorism similarly stretched the charter’s limits beyond recognition without significant consequence.This pattern relies on increasingly elastic legal interpretations by the world’s most powerful state. The U.S. refusal to ratify the Rome Statute and recognize the International Criminal Court raises profound questions about global accountability. It is time to accept that a rules-based order selectively applied is not a rules-based order at all.Timothy Kwiatkowski London, Ont.New normalRe “Canada’s rupture with the U.S. is temporary” (April 23): I admire the optimism. But I think, no, I hope, it’s wrong.What Canada should be learning here, as should so many others, is that “once you have paid him the Danegeld, you never get rid of the Dane,” to quote Rudyard Kipling. We accepted full integration of our economies, never anticipating that a Trump might come along and tell us the cost of remaining so would rise. We built a structure without a fire escape plan.While some people look hopefully toward November midterms, we should be forever vigilant and remember that November might not happen; 2028 might not happen. Even then, a new Trump might come again.Free trade is a great economic tool, but total economic integration is not. Mark Carney is right to look long term and find ways that provide exits when an arsonist appears. Now if only he would stop talking and start doing.Tom Curran Prince Edward County, Ont.It doesn’t really matter if the rupture is temporary. It’s still worthwhile to open up new avenues of trade beyond the United States. This would give our economy more adaptability in future. We can always switch more in favour of U.S. customers in future, perhaps with a more favourable U.S. administration, as long as we don’t leave new clients abroad in the lurch. It’s a choice. Adaptability is a good skill to have beyond…

This excerpt is published under fair use for community discussion. Read the full article at The Globe and Mail.